Talk:Sultanate of Morocco (1665–1912)

What happened to the old page? 70.18.13.225 (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. R Prazeres (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sultanate of Morocco (1665–1912) → Alaouite Sultanate – Practically all history books on Morocco label its historical periods according to the different dynasties (e.g. see the Encyclopedia of Islam editions, any of the Oxford-published encyclopedias and dictionaries, Abun-Nasr's history, Lugan's history, Abitbol's history, etc (list edited for fix)), and that is the established practice on Wikipedia already: e.g. Idrisid dynasty, Almoravid dynasty, Almohad Caliphate, Marinid Sultanate, Saadi Sultanate, etc. Therefore the primary identifying word of the title needs to be "Alaouite". The name "Sultanate of Morocco" is vague and ambiguous, and the fact that it thus needs the dates as a disambiguation makes it needlessly less concise and less natural as per WP:CRITERIA. There is already an Alaouite dynasty page, but since the dynasty continued to reign during both the French Protectorate in Morocco (after 1912) and the present-day Kingdom of Morocco (after 1956), some have reasonably argued that there should be a separate page for the pre-colonial Alaouite period prior to 1912, to represent this chapter in Moroccan history. Someone created this page, and it needs a lot of work, but if it's here to stay then it needs a more helpful title. So Alaouite Sultanate is a better fit for now, being precise (it can't be confused with the periods before or after) and consistent with the titles of other similar pages noted above. R Prazeres (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I also forgot to add that "1665" is arguably the wrong start date, or an arbitrary start date, based on WP:OR. For example, Abun-Nasr's history labels the relevant chapter with a start date of 1668 (the capture of Marrakesh), Lugan with a start date of 1636, and other dates would be possible while none of them are a self-evident choice. So another reason to switch to a format without the dates. Moreover, it's not clear that "Sultanate of Morocco" was an official name for the country; it's a name chosen by the original creator of the article (now blocked) without citing any sources, therefore more WP:OR. R Prazeres (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support It would make sense to move the page to this name since the previous dynasties were also Sultanates of Morocco. Mhd240 (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I do not think an article with the title Alaouite Sultanate should be restricted to before 1912. I am not opposed to a move, but dropping the date range while retaining the restricted scope does not seem like a good idea to me. 01:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

If you mean that "Sultanate" is too vague without the dates, I don't see how, since the Sultanate did end in 1912 (the start of the French/Spanish Protectorate), and after independence in 1956 the country is officially called the "Kingdom of Morocco". This title would be in line with the articles series for other countries (e.g. see the series posted on the right at History of Egypt or History of China, among others). Indeed, the vast majority articles of this kind, as far as I see, avoid dates in their titles (for good reason, I think, considering the problem of arbitrary WP:OR I just noted in addendum above). If there are better suggestions, I'd certainly welcome them, but this is the best solution I can see at the moment. R Prazeres (talk) 03:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "the Sultanate did end in 1912"? I don't think so. It continued under French protection. I'd have no problem with an article of the proposed title if it did not imply that the sultanate came to an end in 1912. In other words, if it had a section on the protectorate period, specifically with reference to the continued functioning of the sultan's government. Srnec (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you mean, but given that the sultan remained only a figurehead and not a sovereign leader and a major regime changed occurred, I think it's reasonable to explain that in the lead and link to the French Protectorate in Morocco for that period. That said, what other title would you suggest? The current name is problematic WP:OR and nearly any set of dates will pose a similar problem as noted above. In my mind, the real alternative is to simply delete this new unsourced page and put energy back into the long-established (but undeveloped) Alaouite dynasty page instead, which can reasonably include summary sections for later periods. I'm not opposed to that (and might even prefer it), but lacking feedback to that question back at Talk:Alaouite dynasty, I'm trying to move things forward to a point where myself and other editors know where to edit and where to link for this topic (or set of topics). R Prazeres (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Agree with Srnec regarding the scope of the article. List_of_rulers_of_Morocco#Alaouite_dynasty mentions a different time span: "1666–1957: Alaouite sultans of Morocco". I agree it makes sense to merge this article and Alaouite dynasty.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vpab15 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why exactly does this article need to exist? Is there any reason it shouldn't be merged with Alaouite dynasty? There is barely anything in either of them other than a list of sultans. If this page is to remain, I might support a change to "Alaouite sultanate" as certainly better than the current title, but my current inclination is that I would prefer they be merged. If nothing else, I assume many links currently going to the "Alaouite dynasty" page are general and not going there merely for royal gossip. They would all have to be redirected here. Walrasiad (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen other people's feedback, I'm more and more in favour of that too. My initial instinct was to nominate this page for deletion or merge back when it was created, but I thought that would be opposed on arguments that the Alaouite period could be reasonably split, so I was aiming to give that logic a chance. I'm now tempted to withdraw support for the move and recommend instead a merge or (since nothing here is sourced) a blank-and-redirect. If this move doesn't happen, that's what I'll do, and I'll try to put some work in at the other page. R Prazeres (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object. If future expansion required, they could always be split again. Srnec (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. I believe as the proposer I can still close the discussion if opposition is unanimous and if I withdraw my request (see WP:RMCLOSE). Based on the discussion above, then, I'll withdraw this move request. I'm not sure if this is also consensus enough to redirect this page to Alaouite Dynasty right away, so if not I'll add a merge request. R Prazeres (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

March 2021

Regarding this edit:

On what page is that map printed? M.Bitton (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not printed on the book but it gives an overview of the size of the state, that was the greatest extent of Morocco under the Alaouite dynasty. Mhd240 (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, don't attribute WP:OR to a source, especially when reverting someone's edit. M.Bitton (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The map seems accurate at first look (though I'm not sure about the Western Sahara) but at some point I will simply have to go through some of these maps originally made by Omar-toons (including the Marinid map) and verify them with sources that can be added to the description there. (Unless someone beats me to it.) Maybe the sources were discussed again on a French page somewhere but the author never added them to the description as should have happened. R Prazeres (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The map is unsourced (verifiability is non-negotiable) and Omar-toons was blocked indefinitely for many reasons, including "misrepresenting sources to push a POV". As for the Marinids' map, I don't see how another map could replace the one that is properly sourced, especially when editors have gone to great lengths to make sure it looks exactly like the one portrayed in the source. M.Bitton (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]